[Bug 17617] New: should 'over021.bad.xsd' be valid?

Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 17617] New: should 'over021.bad.xsd' be valid?

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17617

           Summary: should 'over021.bad.xsd' be valid?
           Product: XML Schema Test Suite
           Version: 2006-11-06
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Saxon tests
        AssignedTo: [hidden email]
        ReportedBy: [hidden email]
         QAContact: [hidden email]


Test 'over021.bad.xsd' of set 'Override' overrides the same component within
the same <xs:override> element twice. I agree from a logical point of view,
that this should be invalid. But which clause in the spec makes it invalid?

If the schema is changed from:

<xs:override schemaLocation="over019a.xsd">
  <xs:element name="doc" type="xs:date"/>
  <xs:element name="doc" type="xs:time"/>
</xs:override>

to:

<xs:override schemaLocation="over019a.xsd">
  <xs:element name="doc" type="xs:date"/>
</xs:override>
<xs:override schemaLocation="over019a.xsd">
  <xs:element name="doc" type="xs:time"/>
</xs:override>

then the transformation runs twice and element declaration "doc" is duplicate
causing sch-props-correct.2 to fail. But with only one <xs:override> the
transformation only runs once and selects the first "doc" element declaration.

Best regards,
Andreas Meissl

--
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 17617] should 'over021.bad.xsd' be valid?

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17617

Michael Kay <[hidden email]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[hidden email]

--- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <[hidden email]> 2012-06-29 11:09:25 UTC ---
On a strict reading of the spec I think you might be correct that this is not
an error.

However, the non-normative description of the transformation perhaps captures
the intent: "[if] O1 has a child E1 with the same element type and the same
value for its name attribute, then D2′ has a copy of E1 in the location
corresponding to E2's place in D2.", which most people would read as implying
that if O1 has several such children, then D2' has copies of all of them, which
would produce an invalid schema.

So I think we should make this an error.

--
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 17617] should 'over021.bad.xsd' be valid?

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17617

David Ezell <[hidden email]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |[hidden email]

--- Comment #2 from David Ezell <[hidden email]> 2012-06-29 16:07:38 UTC ---
On discussion the WG believes that this an erratum is needed to make this
situation an error.

--
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 17617] should 'over021.bad.xsd' be valid?

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17617

Andrew <[hidden email]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED ASSIGNED           |NEW NEW

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 17617] should 'over021.bad.xsd' be valid?

Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17617

Andrew <[hidden email]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Loading...